McKinsey x Artemis Joint Report: Only 1% of Stablecoin's $35 Trillion Transaction Volume is Real Payments, C-Side Usage Negligible

marsbitPublished on 2026-03-18Last updated on 2026-03-18

Abstract

McKinsey and Artemis's joint report reveals that out of $35 trillion in annual stablecoin transaction volume, only about 1% ($390 billion) represents genuine payments. The majority (58%) of these real payments are B2B transactions—such as cross-border settlements and corporate treasury operations—which grew 733% year-over-year. Consumer usage, including retail payments and card spending, remains negligible. The report identifies five structural reasons for this institutional dominance: 1) Greater financial efficiency incentives for businesses; 2) Programmable payments suit B2B workflows, not consumer use cases; 3) Regulatory frameworks favor institutional adoption; 4) Closed-loop B2B systems avoid network effects needed for retail; 5) Corporations prioritize internal benefits over expanding to retail networks. While B2B stablecoin adoption continues accelerating, consumer usage faces significant friction and may remain secondary. The analysis suggests stablecoins may evolve primarily as an institutional settlement layer rather than a mainstream retail payment tool.

Author: Stablecoin Insider / McKinsey×Artemis

Compiled by: Deep Tide TechFlow

Deep Tide Introduction: The McKinsey and Artemis joint report did something rare in the industry: breaking down the stablecoin transaction volume data. The conclusion: of the approximately $35 trillion in annual on-chain transaction volume, only about $390 billion (about 1%) represents real payment behavior, of which 58% is business-to-business financial operations, with an annual growth of 733%. Consumer-side stablecoin usage is almost negligible, and this is no accident—the article summarizes five structural reasons explaining why the gap between institutions and individuals is not just a temporary disparity.

Full text as follows:

The stablecoin industry has a headline problem.

On one hand, raw on-chain data shows tens of trillions of dollars flowing on-chain annually, a figure that fuels endless comparisons with Visa and Mastercard, and predictions of SWIFT's imminent replacement.

On the other hand, a landmark report released in February 2026 by McKinsey & Company and Artemis Analytics stripped all this away and asked a more direct question: how much of it is real payments?

The answer is about 1%.

Of the approximately $35 trillion in annualized stablecoin transaction volume, only about $390 billion represents genuine end-user payments, such as supplier invoices, cross-border remittances, payroll disbursements, and card swipes. The rest is trading activity, internal fund shuffling, arbitrage behavior, and automated smart contract loops.

The report concludes that the inflated headline numbers should be "the starting point for analysis, not a proxy for measuring payment adoption."

But within this real $390 billion baseline, there is a story worth examining closely, and it almost entirely revolves around corporate finance, not consumer wallets.

B2B Dominates: What the Data Actually Shows

According to the McKinsey/Artemis analysis (benchmarked to activity data from December 2025), business-to-business transactions account for $226 billion of all real stablecoin payment volume, about 58%.

This figure represents a 733% year-on-year increase, primarily driven by supply chain payments, cross-border supplier settlements, and financial liquidity management. Asia leads in geographic activity, but adoption is also accelerating in Latin America and Europe.

The remainder of the real payment space is distributed among payroll and remittances ($90 billion), capital market settlements ($8 billion), and linked card spending ($4.5 billion).

According to McKinsey, card spending associated with stablecoins grew an astonishing 673% year-on-year, but in absolute terms, it remains only a small fraction of B2B flow.

For context: this total of $390 billion represents only 0.02% of McKinsey's estimated global annual payment total of over 2 quadrillion dollars. Specifically, B2B stablecoin flow accounts for about 0.01% of the global $160 trillion B2B payment market.

These numbers are large in the context of stablecoins but remain minuscule in the context of the global financial system.

Monthly run-rate data more intuitively shows where the momentum lies. According to data cited by BVNK from the McKinsey/Artemis report, stablecoin monthly payment volume was only $5 billion in January 2024; by early 2026, this number had exceeded $30 billion—a sixfold increase in less than two years, with the steepest acceleration occurring in the second half of 2025.

Annualized, this run rate now exceeds $390 billion.

"The fact that real stablecoin payments are far lower than conventional estimates does not diminish the long-term potential of stablecoins as a payment rail; it simply establishes a clearer baseline for assessing where the market stands." — McKinsey/Artemis Analytics, February 2026

Why the Gap Exists: Five Structural Forces Excluding Retail

The divergence between the explosive adoption in B2B and the negligible consumer usage is not coincidental but the product of structural asymmetries that systematically favor corporate use cases over retail ones.

Here are the five forces driving the institutional gap:

1) Financial Efficiency Beats Consumer Convenience

Corporate treasurers are driven by specific, quantifiable pain points: SWIFT correspondent banking chains that take one to five business days to settle, currency exchange windows that tie up working capital, and intermediary fees layered on at every transaction point.

Stablecoins solve all three problems simultaneously. For a company paying suppliers in fifteen countries, the economic case is clear; for a consumer buying coffee, it is not. The incentive to switch is orders of magnitude greater on the enterprise side.

2) Programmability Has No Equivalent Value on the Retail Side

The B2B explosion is partly a story of programmable payments. Smart contracts enable conditional logic—invoice triggering, delivery confirmation, escrow release—that can automate entire accounts payable processes at scale.

This is naturally suited to corporate finance operations, as high-value, structured, repetitive payment processes benefit immensely from automation. Retail payments lack similar trigger use cases at any scale.

Consumers buying groceries don't need programmable conditions; they need something that works like swiping a card. The cognitive complexity of blockchain-native payments remains a barrier on the retail side, and programmability does nothing to help that.

3) Regulatory Architecture Favors Institutions

Post the GENIUS Act, institutional operators have adapted to the compliance architecture—AML/CFT, Travel Rule, licensing requirements—and built the legal infrastructure to operate confidently.

Corporate finance teams have dedicated compliance functions that can absorb onboarding friction; individual consumers cannot. The result is that, in most jurisdictions, on-ramps for stablecoins remain operationally complex for retail users, and the merchant acceptance gap persists globally.

Every frictionless B2B payment today is a data point institutions use to justify further investment; the consumer ecosystem, meanwhile, awaits a compliant, user-experience-smooth entry point that has not yet emerged at scale.

4) Closed-Loop Advantage

B2B stablecoin payments succeed precisely because they are closed-loop: business sends to business, both have wallets, both have compliance infrastructure, and neither needs a universal merchant network.

Consumer payments face the classic chicken-and-egg problem: merchants won't invest in stablecoin acceptance infrastructure until consumers demand it; consumers won't enable wallets until they can spend widely.

The institutional world completely bypasses this problem by operating in bilateral or consortium environments, requiring no open merchant network.

5) Institutional Incentives Point Upstream

Corporate treasurers holding stablecoins gain yield, reduce FX exposure, and improve liquidity management—advantages that accrue internally and, if shared downstream, introduce complexity or competitive vulnerability.

Extending stablecoin use to a supplier's supplier, employees, or end consumers requires building a network that benefits those downstream parties, which is not necessarily in the interest of the originating finance team.

In the absence of a clear ROI driving network expansion outward, companies rationally choose to consolidate internal gains.

Market Context

BVNK's own infrastructure data corroborates the dominance of B2B from an operator's perspective. The company processed $30 billion in annualized stablecoin payment volume in 2025, a 2.3x year-on-year increase, with one-third of the volume coming from the US market.

Its client list (Worldpay, Deel, Flywire, Rapyd, Thunes) consists of leaders in cross-border B2B and payroll, not consumer applications.

As BVNK stated in its 2025 year-end review:

"The initial assumption that remittances and consumer transfers would lead stablecoin growth did not materialize as the primary driver; B2B instead assumed that role."

When Will Retail Catch Up—If Ever

The McKinsey/Artemis baseline makes the current situation clear. What it cannot answer is whether the institutional gap will narrow, widen, or permanently solidify.

Here are three possible scenarios for the next 18 months:

Near Term 2026—The Gap Widens Further

B2B momentum shows no signs of slowing. The monthly run rate of over $30 billion continues its trajectory as more companies use stablecoin rails for cross-border accounts payable and financial operations. Consumer stablecoin card spending grows modestly but remains negligible in absolute terms compared to B2B flow. Even if retail adoption advances slowly in percentage terms, the gap widens in absolute dollar terms.

Mid-Term End-2026 to 2027—Inflection Points Begin to Appear

Several catalysts could begin to bridge the gap: bank-issued multi-currency stablecoins reduce retail on-ramp friction; programmable features extend to consumer applications via AI Agent payment delegation; gig economy wages paid in stablecoins create downstream spending balances for employees.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent predicted that stablecoin supply could reach $3 trillion by 2030, a trajectory implying consumer network effects will eventually emerge.

Counterview—Retail May Never 'Catch Up,' and That Might Be the Point

The most honest reading of the McKinsey data is that stablecoins may be evolving into what the report faintly hints at: a programmable settlement layer on the internet for machines, finance departments, and institutions, with consumer adoption being an indirect, embedded benefit, not the primary use case.

If this framework holds, then the institutional gap is not a failure of adoption but a feature of the technology's natural architecture. Corporate wages paid in stablecoins may eventually create downstream consumer spending, but the path from B2B infrastructure to retail wallets is long, circuitous, and dependent on user experience breakthroughs that have not yet emerged at scale.

An Honest Baseline

The McKinsey/Artemis report did something more valuable than recording stablecoin growth: it established an honest baseline the industry has clearly been missing.

Stripping away trading noise, internal shuffling, and automated smart contract loops reveals a genuinely growing market—real payment volume doubled from 2024 to 2025—but one that is highly concentrated on the institutional side in a structural, non-accidental way.

The 733% growth in B2B is not a deferred consumer story; it is a maturing finance story.

The enterprises building on stablecoin rails today are solving real operational problems—cross-border friction, correspondent banking inefficiencies, working capital delays—problems that have nothing to do with whether consumers hold stablecoin wallets. They will continue building, regardless.

Related Questions

QAccording to the McKinsey and Artemis report, what percentage of the $35 trillion in annual stablecoin transaction volume represents real payments?

AOnly about 1% of the $35 trillion in annual stablecoin transaction volume, or approximately $390 billion, represents real payments.

QWhich segment dominates the real stablecoin payment volume, and what was its growth rate?

ABusiness-to-business (B2B) transactions dominate the real stablecoin payment volume, accounting for 58% ($226 billion) and experiencing a growth rate of 733% year-over-year.

QWhat are the five structural reasons identified for the gap between institutional and consumer adoption of stablecoins?

AThe five structural reasons are: 1) Financial efficiency beats consumer convenience, 2) Programmability has no equivalent value in retail, 3) Regulatory architecture favors institutions, 4) Closed-loop advantages, and 5) Institutional incentives point upstream.

QHow does the real stablecoin payment volume compare to the global payment market?

AThe $390 billion in real stablecoin payments represents only 0.02% of the global annual payment volume of over $2 quadrillion, and the B2B stablecoin volume is about 0.01% of the global $160 trillion B2B payment market.

QWhat is one potential future scenario where the gap between institutional and consumer stablecoin use might begin to narrow?

AA potential scenario for narrowing the gap includes catalysts such as bank-issued multi-currency stablecoins reducing retail onboarding friction, programmable features extending to consumer applications via AI Agent payments, and gig economy wages paid in stablecoins creating downstream consumer spending balances.

Related Reads

Why Pricing Social Interactions is Doomed to Fail?

Titled "Why Putting a Price on Social Interaction Is Doomed to Fail," this article critiques attempts to monetize social networks directly through SocialFi models, arguing their inevitable failure stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of media dynamics. Using Marshall McLuhan's theory of "hot" and "cold" media, the author posits that social networks are inherently "cold" media. Their value isn't contained in individual posts but is co-created through user participation, interpretation, and fragmented, ongoing interaction (e.g., replies, shares). This ambiguity and need for user involvement are core to their function. The article asserts that SocialFi projects like Friend.tech failed because introducing real-time, tradable financial pricing (a definitive "hot" signal) into this "cold" environment doesn't add a layer—it replaces the medium's essence. The unambiguous price signal overshadows and nullifies the nuanced, participatory social signal. Users become traders, not participants, and when speculative profits vanish, the underlying social ecosystem—never genuinely cultivated—collapses entirely. This principle extends beyond crypto. The author argues platforms like Twitter have gradually "heated up" through metrics (likes, retweets counts, algorithmically defined value), shifting users from participants to performers and eroding organic engagement. The solution isn't to abandon capital but to manage its entry point. Successful models like Substack, Patreon, or Bandcamp allow capital to "condense" at specific, isolated nodes (e.g., subscriptions, one-time payments) without permeating and "heating" every social interaction. They preserve the core "cold," participatory medium while enabling monetization at designated boundaries. The NFT boom and bust serves as a stark parallel: the ancient "cold" medium of collecting (valued for story, community, gradual accumulation) was rapidly destroyed by platforms that introduced real-time floor prices, rarity scores, and trading dashboards, transforming collectors into speculators and vaporizing cultural value when prices fell. The core lesson: "Liquidity equals heat." Injecting high liquidity and definitive pricing into a "cold" participatory medium doesn't optimize it; it fundamentally alters and destroys its value-creating mechanism. The future lies not in pricing every social gesture but in finding precise, non-invasive points for capital to condense without overheating the entire ecosystem.

marsbit2m ago

Why Pricing Social Interactions is Doomed to Fail?

marsbit2m ago

Jensen Huang's CMU Speech: In the AI Era, Don't Just Watch, Build

Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA and a first-generation immigrant, delivered the commencement address to Carnegie Mellon University's class of 2026. He shared his personal journey from a humble background to founding NVIDIA, emphasizing resilience, learning from failure, and the responsibility that comes with leadership. Huang framed the present moment as the dawn of the AI revolution, a shift he believes is more profound than previous computing waves. He described AI as fundamentally resetting computing—moving from human-written software to machines that understand, reason, and use tools. This will create a new industry for generating intelligence and transform every sector. While acknowledging AI's potential to automate tasks and displace some jobs, Huang distinguished between the *tasks* of a job and its core *purpose*. He argued AI will augment human capability, not replace humans. The real risk, he stated, is not AI itself, but people being left behind by those who effectively use AI. He presented AI as a generational opportunity for massive infrastructure investment—in chip factories, data centers, energy grids, and advanced manufacturing—that could re-industrialize nations like the U.S. and bridge the digital divide by making computing and intelligent tools accessible to all. Huang called for a balanced approach: advancing AI safely and responsibly, establishing prudent policies, ensuring broad access, and encouraging universal participation. He urged the graduates not to fear the future but to engage with optimism and ambition, reminding them of CMU's motto, "My heart is in the work." His core message was clear: this is their moment to actively build and shape the AI-powered future, not merely observe it.

marsbit59m ago

Jensen Huang's CMU Speech: In the AI Era, Don't Just Watch, Build

marsbit59m ago

The Era Has Arrived Where Human Writers Must Prove They Are Not Machines

The article describes an era where AI-generated content is flooding the market, forcing human authors to prove they are not machines. It begins with the example of dozens of AI-written, error-ridden biographies of Henry Kissinger appearing on Amazon within hours of his death, a pattern repeated for other deceased celebrities and even living experts who find fraudulent books under their names. This spam content has exploded, with monthly new book releases on platforms like Amazon reaching 300,000 by late 2025. The issue spans genres, from suspiciously high proportions of AI-written teen romance and self-help books to dangerous, AI-generated foraging guides containing lethal advice. The platforms' automated review systems, designed to catch plagiarism and banned words, are ill-equipped to detect AI-generated text that avoids these pitfalls while being nonsensical or fraudulent. The problem has infiltrated traditional publishing. A major publisher, Hachette, had to recall a bestselling horror novel after AI detection tools suggested 78% of its content was machine-generated. An acclaimed European philosophy book was later revealed to be entirely written by AI under a fake author persona. In response, authors are fighting back. At the 2026 London Book Fair, 10,000 writers published a blank book titled "Don't Steal This Book" containing only their signatures—using emptiness as a protest weapon in an age of AI overproduction. Initiatives like the "Human Author Certification" program have emerged, ironically placing the burden on humans to prove their work is not machine-made. The article warns of a vicious cycle: AI-generated low-quality books pollute the data used to train future AI models, leading to "model collapse" and an ever-worsening flood of digital waste, eroding trust in publishing and devaluing human creativity.

marsbit1h ago

The Era Has Arrived Where Human Writers Must Prove They Are Not Machines

marsbit1h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片